Journal of Petroleum and Gas Engineering Vol. 3(4), pp.

58-73, April 2012

Available online at http://www.academicjournals.org/JPGE
DOI: 10.5897/JPGE11.066
ISSN 2141-2677 ©2012 Academic Journals

Full Length Research Paper

Simulation of surfactant based enhanced oil recovery

Wan Rosli Wan Sulaiman1,2* and Euy Soo Lee1
1
Department of Chemical and Biochemical Engineering, Dongguk University, 3-26, Pil-Dong, Chung-gu,
Seoul 100-715, Korea.
2
Department of Petroleum Engineering, Faculty of Petroleum and Renewable Energy Engineering, Universiti Teknologi
Malaysia, 81310 Skudai, Johor, Malaysia.
Accepted 17 March, 2012

Chemical flooding is an important process for enhanced oil recovery. A substantial amount of
remaining oil resides in reservoirs especially in carbonate oil reservoirs that have low primary and
waterflood oil recovery. Most of the chemical flooding studies to date have been performed in water-
wet sandstone reservoirs. As a result, the effects of heterogeneity and wettability of carbonates on
chemical flooding efficiency are fairly unknown. The purpose of this simulation study was to determine
the effects of wettability and wettability alteration on Polysorbate20 surfactant flooding in carbonate
reservoirs. This study used the multi-phase, multi-component, chemical flooding simulator called
(UTCHEM). The results showed that surfactant diffusion, critical micelle concentration, capillary
desaturation and interfacial tension (IFT) reduction were the most important parameters affecting
imbibition of surfactant and wettability alteration. However, these results were dependent on the
transport processes, such as gravity and buoyancy, controlling the oil mobilization and wettability
alteration. Sensitivity analyses of key parameters such as chemical slug size and concentrations,
salinity, reservoir heterogeneity and surfactant adsorption were performed to optimize a surfactant
design for a mixed-wet dolomite reservoir. The field scale model was used but changes in relative
permeability, waterflood residual oil saturation, capillary pressure, and capillary desaturation curves
were made to reflect different wettability conditions. The study was then extended to simulating
wettability alteration during the field scale surfactant flood using the UTCHEM simulator. The results
of modeling the wettability alteration showed that significant differences in injectivity and oil recovery
are caused by the changes in the mobility of the injected fluid. As the use of chemical flooding spreads
to new reservoirs, especially oil-wet and mixed-wet reservoirs, the importance of surfactant-based
wettability alteration will become important.

Key word: Polysorbate20, surfactant, simulation, wettability, enhanced oil recovery.

INTRODUCTION

Chemical flooding is an important technology for
enhanced oil recovery. A substantial amount of remaining
oil resides in reservoirs, many of these are carbonate
reservoirs that have low primary and waterflood recovery
as a result of poor sweep efficiency that has resulted in
bypassed or unswept oil. Chemical flooding methods
such as surfactant flooding have been shown to be
effective in recovering this unswept oil. The basis for
surfactant flood is to inject a surface-active agent (a
*Corresponding author. E-mail: r-wan@petroleum.utm.my. Tel:
+82 10 8320 2711. Fax: +82 2 2266 1848.
surfactant) to reduce the interfacial tension and mobilize
the residual oil saturation.
A few of the many examples of technically successful
surfactant field projects are reported in the literature.
Gilliland and Conley (1976) reported a pilot test for the
Big Muddy Field in Wyoming. The reservoir was low-
pressure watered-out sandstone with reasonably high
remaining oil saturation and successfully increased the
oil cut from 1 to 19% during peak production. Bragg et al.
(1982) reported results for a pilot test at Exxon's Loudon
Field in Illinois. The field test was conducted in a
watered-out portion of a sandstone reservoir. They were
able to produce 60% of the residual oil saturation in spite
of the high-salinity formation brine. Bae (1995) reported

a flooding project in Chevron's Glenn Pool Field in
Oklahoma. They produced one-third of the residual oil
saturation from shallow, low-permeability sandstone.
Putz et al. (1980) reported results for a microemulsion
pilot in the Chateaurenard Field. They reported that 68%
of the residual oil was recovered in this pilot. Holm and
Robertson (1980) and Widmeyer et al. (1988) also
reported successful pilot tests.
One example of a chemical flooding project in a
carbonate reservoir was reported by Adams et al.
(1987). They presented a flooding pilot test for two well
pairs in a San Andreas dolomite reservoir in West Texas.
Based on a tracer test, the residual oil saturation to
chemical flooding was 7.5% for one of the well pairs and
18% for the other. The key reservoir properties affecting
the surfactant flood were the heterogeneity and high
salinity. This project is one of the few that studies
chemical flooding in a carbonate setting.
Oil recovery during chemical flooding is heavily
impacted by the petrophysical and petrochemical
properties controlled by the wettability of a reservoir.
Historically, all petroleum reservoirs were said to be
strongly water-wet. This theory is based on the fact that
all clean sedimentary rocks are strongly water-wet and
reservoir rocks are created during sediment deposition
amongst an aqueous phase (Anderson, 1986). In the
1930s, this theory was questioned and evidence
showed that the wettability of different minerals could be
altered by adsorption of organic matter from crude oils
creating different types and degrees of wettability.
A carbonate rock, which tends to adsorb simple
organic acids from crude oils (Anderson, 1986), will
commonly have weakly wetting conditions. Chilingar and
Yen (1983) have shown that carbonate reservoir rocks
are commonly weakly oil-wet. On the other hand, a
sandstone rock, which tends to adsorb simple organic
bases (Anderson, 1986), is expected to be primarily
water-wet. Conversely, Treiber et al. (1972) reported that
sandstone reservoirs do not have a common wettability
condition. Also, a rock can have mixed wettability
(Salathiel, 1973).
Past simulations of chemical flooding
Using reservoir simulators to predict and understand the
processes taking place during chemical flooding is
currently of renewed interest to the industry due to high
current oil prices and thus, the greatly increased
interest in enhanced oil recovery. Over the past 30
years, chemical flooding simulators have become more
and more complex. In addition, the need for accurate
chemical flooding prediction is more important as
enhanced oil recovery projects are getting more attention.
Pope and Nelson (1978), Todd and Chase (1979),
Dogru et al. (1984), Datta-Gupta et al. (1986) and Scott
et al. (1987) were among the first to publish papers on
Sulaiman and Lee 59
chemical flooding simulators.
Chemical flood simulators are used in academia and
industry to help understand, optimize, interpret and
design chemical flooding processes. As with other
simulators, chemical flooding simulators are often used
to history match and understand the results of core
floods or field performance. In one example, Saad et al.
(1989) used the chemical compositional simulator
(UTCHEM) developed by University of Texas to history
match surf act ant flood and found among other things
that cation exchange was an important factor in the
success of the flood.
Kalpakci et al. (1990) used a modified version of
UTCHEM simulator to study and focused on harsh
reservoir conditions such as high salinity and high
temperature. The design was obtained by up-scaling
from coreflood experiments to field scale. They
determined that injecting a large slug of chemicals at low
concentrations is optimum based on economics. The
large up-front cost of chemicals derived from a small slug
with high concentration can produce adverse economic
results.
Wu (1996) studied the chemical flooding optimization
for several field scale projects. His focus was primarily
on onshore sandstone reservoirs, and his optimization
study focused on chemical concentrations, slug sizes and
adsorption. In addition, an economic analysis was used
to determine the optimum design. He concluded that a
large surfactant slug size at low concentrations was the
optimum design. However, it is important to understand
that his results were heavily dependent on the low price
of oil at the time of his study and on an assumed very
low value of surfactant adsorption.
METHODOLOGY
Simulation model
The first step in this study was to develop a simulation model
representative of the reservoir. The field operator provided
properties such as reservoir dimensions, petrophysical parameters
and fluid properties. The reservoir is 4,700 feet deep, 100°F,
100 feet thick, and has petrophysical properties indicative of a
mixed-wet rock.
Table 1 shows some of the petrophysical properties used in this
study. The reservoir has uncharacteristically high residual oil
saturation for a mixed-wet rock. However, studies like Tie and
Morrow (2005) showed that this range of residual oil saturation is
common in a carbonate rock. The reservoir fluid properties were
also obtained from the field operator. Table 2 shows the fluid
properties used in this study.
A simulation model was developed according to these
properties. The model was developed as a quarter 5-spot
symmetry element with a pressure-constrained injector and
producer. The symmetry element was based on a 40-acre well
spacing, which is relatively large for chemical flooding. The field
operator also provided the producer and injector well constraints
(300 and 2,500 psi bottomhole, respectively), which were based
on facility and reservoir fracture gradient limitations. The
permeability field used in this model was developed by the field
60 J. Petroleum Gas Eng.

Table 1. Reservoir and simulation model properties.

Model physical dimension 700'  800'  100'

Depth 4,700 feet

Average = 0.16
Porosity Min = 0.06
Max = 0.273

Average = 156 mD
Min = 4.4 mD
Permeability
Max = 870 mD
kv/kh = 0.05

Water = 0.3
Residual saturations
Oil = 0.42

Water = 0.4
Corey type relative permeability endpoint
Oil = 0.6

Water = 2
Corey type relative permeability exponent
Oil = 2

Simulation model pore volume 1.610 MMbbl

Water = 0.53
Simulated post waterflood average saturations
Oil = 0.47

Simulated post waterflood oil in place 0.75 MMbbl

Simulated post waterflood average reservoir pressure 755 psi

Table 2. Fluid properties.

Oil = 31 °API (0.87 g/ml)

Density
Water = 1 g/cc
Water = 0.72 cp
Viscosity
Oil = 5 cp

Overall = 1 meq/ml
Ca2+ = 2,066 ppm
2+
Mg = 539 ppm
Brine composition +
Na = 20,533 ppm
SO42+ = 4,540 ppm
Clˉ = 32,637 ppm

operator and is shown in Figure 1. As shown in Figure 1, the Surfactant data

reservoir is heterogeneous with high permeability layers in the
middle and the top.
This reservoir has had a long history of primary and secondary
recovery. Therefore, a waterflood was simulated to obtain
conditions similar to the current state of the reservoir. The
simulation was run until a water cut of 98% was attained, resulting
in 1.8 pore volumes injected. This simulation generated the initial oil
saturation and pressure distribution for the chemical flooding
simulations. The average post-waterflood saturations and pressure
are shown in Table 1. Figure 2 shows the oil saturation distribution
and the effect of the high permeability layers which had the lowest
post- waterflood oil saturation.
The surfactant used in this study was Polysorbate20 based on the
screening of its properties. David et al. (2006) developed a
screening process for the surfactant phase behavior to determine
the compatibility with the crude oil and the optimum surfactant/co-
surfactant/solvent blend. These experiments were used to
determine the optimum salinity and corresponding interfacial
tension (IFT). Following the laboratory's screening test, the
optimum surfactant formulation and phase behavior was used in
this simulation study. The UTCHEM surfactant phase behavior
parameters were obtained by curve fitting the laboratory
solubilization ratio for several salinities. Although, more than one

Figure 1. Simulation model permeability (mD).
Figure 2. Simulation model initial oil saturation.
method was appropriate for completing this task, a trial and error
method using the batch.txt example UTCHEM file was used for
this study.
The resulting curve fit is shown in Figure 3. The optimum salinity for
this surfactant/crude oil/brine solution was relatively high. The
surfactant blend was designed in this fashion since the reservoir
salinity of ~33,000 ppm is high. In addition, the IFT at optimum
salinity is quite low. Using the Chen et al. (2004) equation and the
solubilization ratio at optimum salinity, an approximate value of
0.001 dynes/cm was expected.
Laboratory corefloods
In addition, Berea and reservoir corefloods were conducted to
measure the performance of the surfactant. In particular, the
surfactant retention was measured in several corefloods and
ranged from 0.1 to 0.4 mg/g with an average value of 0.2 mg/g.
The dolomite cores contain anhydrite that is continuously
dissolved at about 500 ppm of Ca2+, so this level of Ca2+ pick up
was accounted for in the design of injected slug and drive.
Sulaiman and Lee 61
For this simulation study, the dissolution of Ca2+ was not
modeled. The process was assumed to occur instantaneously in
the field-scale simulations and the phase behavior properties
accounted for the Ca2+ pick up at the initial conditions. Chemical
screening experiments were conducted with 500 ppm Ca2+
initially and these data were matched to obtain the UTCHEM
parameters. Figure 4 shows the relative permeability data obtained
from the core flood analysis.
Base case surfactant design
Following the analysis of the laboratory data, a base case design
was established. The base case simulation used the previously
discussed well constraints and initial conditions. The well
constraints are important for chemical flooding because they can
affect the life of the project. The chemical flooding design was partly
based on the laboratory coreflood design. The laboratory design
was used as the starting point but was up-scaled for a field size
application. Table 3 shows a summary of base case design
including slug sizes, chemical concentrations and salinity.
62 J. Petroleum Gas Eng.

Figure 3. Comparison of measured and UTCHEM surfactant phase behavior.

Figure 4. Relative permeability at different water saturation.

This design consisted of a 0.25 PV surfactant slug. The salinity recommendation from the field operator, but the actual value is
gradient was also derived from laboratory experiments and can be unknown. An assumed value for the average permeability was used
a key parameter for the success of a chemical flood. The salinity to correspond to the best part of the field. There are other regions
gradient was important for this study because of the extreme in the field that have significantly lower permeability.
changes in salinity throughout the chemical flood.
There were also several assumed values that went into the
model. A value of surfactant adsorption was conservatively chosen
within the values reported by the laboratory. The value used was
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
slightly higher than the average laboratory value (0.3 mg/g
compared to 0.2 mg/g). The capillary desaturation curve was also Base case
assumed using parameters as presented in Delshad (1990). The
last assumption dealt with permeability. A ratio of vertical to Figure 5 shows the base case injection rate and pressure
horizontal permeability of 0.05 was used based on a throughout the chemical flood. The Figure 5 shows the
 Sul aim an and Lee 63

Table 3. Base Case surfactant design.

Rate constraint = 2,000 bbl/day

Injection well constraint
Pressure control = 2,500 psi
Production well constraint Pressure constraint = 300 psi
0.25 PV
1 Vol% surfactant
Surfactant slug
1,000 ppm polymer
0.365 meq/ml (21,000 ppm TDS)
1 PV
Polymer drive 1,000 ppm polymer
0.2 meq/ml (11,700 ppm TDS)
0.5 PV
Water postflush
0.04 meq/ml (2,300 ppm TDS)
Surfactant adsorption 0.3 mg surfactant/g rock
Water = 1,865
Capillary desaturation parameters
Oil = 59,074
Vertical permeability kv/kh = 0.05

Figure 5. Base case simulation injection rate and bottom-hole pressure.

changes in injection rate during each simulation phase.
Note that all fluid rates, masses and volumes were
reported for a full 5-spot pattern even though the
simulation model was a quarter of a 5-spot symmetry
element. Figure 6 shows the base case production rates
and produced surfactant concentration throughout the
chemical flood.
One important observation of chemical flooding was
the change in production rates during the flood. For this
simulation, a dramatic increase in oil production rate
64 J. Pet rol eum G as Eng.
Figure 6. Base case simulation production rates and produced surfactant concentration
(volume fraction).
Figure 7. Base case oil saturation after 0.2 PV injected.
could be seen. The pre-chemical flood rate was 35 bbls
of oil per day and increased to a peak value of 720
bbls/day (Figure 6). This corresponded to an increase in
oil cut from 2 to 35%. Another important result shown in
this curve was the breakthrough time of oil and
surfactant (0.25 and 0.35 PV, respectively). The
surfactant concentrations were low (<0.001 volume
fraction) compared to the injected values (0.01 volume
fraction). The base case simulation had a reasonable
chemical flooding cumulative oil recovery. The recovery
was 27.8% of the original oil in place which is 42% of the
remaining oil in place after waterflooding.
Figures 7 to 9 show the base case oil saturation
distribution at different times of the chemical flood. The
figures show one three-dimensional profile of a slice
through the wells and one 2-D area cross section of the
high permeability middle layer. It is shown that the oil
saturation was reduced to very low values in the high

Figure 8. Base case oil saturation after 0.35 PV injected.
Figure 9. Base case oil saturation after 1.75 PV injected.
permeability layer at early times. One key result was
the very low oil saturations near the injection well and
in the high permeability layers. At the final time, a
significant amount of oil was left in the low permeability
layers (56% oil saturation).
Sulaiman and Lee 65
Figures 10 to 12 show the base case surfactant
concentration distribution at different times. The profiles
show that the surfactant moved very quickly through the
high permeability layers resulting in early breakthrough.
Due to adsorption and production, almost no surfactant
66 J. Petroleum Gas Eng.

Figure 10. Base case surfactant concentration (volume fraction) after 0.2 PV injected.

Figure 11. Base case surfactant concentration (volume fraction) after 0.35 PV injected.

Figure 12. Base case surfactant concentration (volume fraction) after 1.75 PV injected.
 Sulaiman and Lee 67

Figure 13. Base case IFT (dynes/cm) after 0.2 PV injected.

Figure 14. Base case IFT (dynes/cm) after 0.35 PV injected.

Figure 15. Base case IFT (dynes/cm) after 1.75 PV injected

was left at the final time. Sensitivity analysis

Figures 13 to 15 show the base case IFT distribution
at different times. These figures depicted the same
results as the surfactant concentration profiles. The IFT
was reduced to very low values near the well and in the
high permeability layers. This un-optimized base case
simulation resulted in very promising oil recovery (27.8%
OOIP).
A sensitivity analysis is important because a chemical
project has significant risks based on financial, process
and reservoir uncertainties. Chemical flood simulations
are dependent on a large number of variables used for
reservoir description, fluid and rock properties and
process design.
68 J. Petroleum Gas Eng.

Table 4. Sensitivity simulation designs and results.

Surfactant Surfactant Surfactant Surfactant Chemical cost per

Run Other design Cumulative oil recovery
slug concentration mass efficiency 1
No. variable (%OOIP) barrel of oil
size (%PV) (vol%) (MMlb) (lb/bbl oil)
Sensitivity variable: Base case
1 25 1 5.6 N/A 27.8% 4.5 $14.5

Sensitivity variable: Surfactant concentration

2 25 0.5 2.9 N/A 17.5% 3.6 $13.5
3 25 1.5 8.4 N/A 35.2% 5.3 $16.5

Sensitivity variable: Surfactant slug size

4 50 1 11.2 N/A 38.3% 6.7 $20.1
5 35 1 7.9 N/A 32.7% 5.3 $17.0
6 15 1 3.4 N/A 20.2% 4 $13.7

Sensitivity variable: Salinity

13 25 1 5.6 Surfactant slug salinity = 0.25 meq/ml 27.9% 4.5 $14.5
14 25 1 5.6 Drive salinity = 0.15 meq/ml 27.8% 4.5 $14.5

Sensitivity variable: Surfactant adsorption

15 25 1 5.6 0.1 mg/g 39.2% 3.3 $10.8
16 25 1 5.6 0.6 mg/g 19.2% 7.1 $22.3
17 25 1 5.6 0.43 mg/g 22.9% 5.9 $18.7

Sensitivity variable: Permeability

19 25 1 5.6 kv/kh = 0.01 29.0% 4.3 $13.9
20 25 1 5.6 Avg. Perm. = 78 mD 27.3% 5 $16.3

Sensitivity variable: Capillary desaturation curve

21 25 1 5.6 High oil critical capillary number 25.2% 5 $16.5
1
Assuming a surfactant cost of $2.75 per pound.

Following the assessment of the base case design and observing the effects of uncertain the remaining parameters identical to the base
simulation, a method of testing the sensitivity of design parameters. case. Table 4 shows all of the sensitivity designs
each key process variable was generated with All sensitivity simulations were performed by and their results. The key parameters are
the intent of obtaining the optimum surfactant adjusting one parameter at a time and leaving surfactant which strongly control the oil recovery

and mobility controls.
Table 4 shows the oil recovery, chemical efficiency
and simulation life. Chemical efficiency was calculated
by dividing the mass of chemical injected (pounds) by
the volume of oil recovered during the chemical flood
(barrels). For the base case simulation, the oil and
surfactant breakthrough times were 0.25 and 0.35 PV,
respectively. If the reservoir were water-wet, the oil bank
breakthrough time would be faster and the surfactant
breakthrough time would be slower than in this mixed-
wet case. This phenomenon is due to fractional flow
effects based on differences in relative permeability for
the different wettability conditions. The mobility ratio for
the simulated s u r f a c t a n t flood in this mixed-wet
reservoir was approximately 1.3. This mobility ratio for
the same chemicals would have been about 0.6 for a
water-wet reservoir, a much more favorable value (Chen
et al., 2004).
Sensitivity parameters
The parameters used in this analysis served the purpose
of obtaining the optimum design and testing the effects
of key uncertain parameters. The parameters used to
obtain the optimum design were surfactant concentration,
surfactant slug size and salinity. The value used for
surfactant concentration affects the surfactant mass
affecting both the oil recovery and economics of the
project. Changes in surfactant concentration also affect
the retardation factor of the surfactant slug. The
retardation factor or frontal advance loss is defined as
the loss of frontal velocity due to adsorption and has the
units of pore volumes (Lake, 1989).
The surfactant slug size also affects the surfactant
mass affecting both the oil recovery and economics.
Changes in surfactant slug size will also result in slight
changes in the salinity gradient. A longer surfactant
slug will have a less steep salinity gradient compared to
a shorter surfactant slug.
Salinity gradient is the last parameter used for
surfactant design optimization. The key effects of salinity
gradient are the changes in surfactant phase behavior
during the flood. Pope et al. (1979) presented results that
show maximizing the region of ultra-low interfacial tension
and is optimum for surfactant flooding. Their conclusion
was to design the salinity gradient so that the front of the
surfactant slug has greater than optimum salinity, the
middle of the slug is at optimum salinity and the tail of
the slug has lower than optimum salinity.
Surfactant concentration
A range of surfactant concentrations from 0.5 to 1.5 vol%
were tested for comparison with the base case (1 vol%).
As expected, the surfactant concentration was directly
Sulaiman and Lee 69
related to the oil recovery. The base case simulation with
1 vol% surfactant concentration had an oil recovery of
27.8% OOIP whereas the lower concentration (0.5
vol%) and higher concentration (1.5 vol%) simulations
had recoveries of 17.5 and 35.2%, respectively. The
simulations had a range in retardation factors from 0.3
PV (1.5 vol% surfactant) to 0.9 PV (0.5 vol% surfactant).
Since the base case simulation was designed to inject a
0.25 PV surfactant slug, it would be expected that these
simulations would have very adverse results. However,
recall that the surfactant primarily sweeps the high
permeability layers. This means the calculated
retardation factors, which were based on the entire
reservoir pore volume, gave overestimates according to
the actual swept pore volume.
Figure 16 shows the comparison of oil recovery for the
surfactant concentration simulations. The simultaneous
change in surfactant mass and oil recovery resulted in
differences in chemical efficiency for these simulations.
The simulation with higher concentration gave a worse
chemical efficiency ($16.5/bbl) compared to the base
case ($14.5/bbl). Conversely, the simulation with lower
concentration resulted in an improved efficiency
($13.5/bbl). These values were calculated using a
surfactant price of $2.75 per pound. Therefore, at these
assumed prices, the simulation with the lower injected
surfactant concentration was the optimum for this key
parameter regardless of the adverse retardation factor.
Surfactant slug size
Surfactant slug size was another key parameter studied
in this sensitivity analysis. The range of slug sizes tested
was from 0.15 to 0.5 PV. The results of these simulations
are shown in Table 4 and comparisons of the cumulative
oil recoveries for each are shown in Figure 17. Compared
to the base case, the simulation with the highest oil
recovery was the 0.5 PV slug size as expected. This
simulation was the only one that injected surfactant long
enough to overcome the retardation factor. Even
though the 0.5 PV simulations had the highest oil
recovery, it had the worst chemical efficiency ($20.1/bbl).
The simulation with the best chemical efficiency was the
0.15 PV case which actually had the lowest recovery.
Salinity gradient
The last design optimization parameter was the salinity
gradient. Sensitivity to the salinity gradient was analyzed
by running two simulations. One of which was designed
with a slightly lower slug salinity and the other with
slightly lower polymer drive salinity. These simulations
will affect the surfactant phase behavior and permeability
reduction. The results of these simulations are shown in
Table 4. These simulations resulted in nearly identical
70 J. P e t r o l e um G a s E n g .

Figure 16. Cumulative oil recovery for surfactant concentration simulations.

Figure 17. Cumulative oil recovery for surfactant slug size simulations.

oil recoveries and chemical efficiencies compared to the
base case.
Uncertainty analysis
The parameters used to study the reservoir and chemical
uncertainty were surfactant adsorption, vertical to
horizontal permeability ratio (kv/kh), average permeability
and the dependence of the oil saturation on capillary
number.
The surfactant adsorption was determined in
laboratory experiments in a parallel study. As a result of
that study, ranges of values for surfactant adsorption

Figure 18. Cumulative oil recovery for surfactant adsorption simulations.
were presented. In this study, the effect of values within
that range and beyond was tested. The primary effects
of surfactant adsorption were changes in the retardation
factor and the amount of surfactant required.
The vertical to horizontal permeability ratio is important
for establishing reasonable vertical sweep efficiency
during the chemical flooding process. A value for this
reservoir is 0.05. A lower value of 0.01 was used in this
uncertainty analysis.
The permeability is variable within the reservoir in this
study. The base case simulation model was based on the
“sweet” spot of the reservoir that had the highest
permeability. It was expected that lower permeability
regions would have similar oil recovery but will have
changes in permeability reduction and project life. As a
result, the economics of the project would be drastically
reduced. For this study, a permeability field with half the
average horizontal permeability was simulated.
The last uncertain parameter was the oil capillary
desaturation curve. The base case values used for this
study were based on Delshad (1990). To test the effect of
this parameter, a more adverse oil capillary number was
simulated by shifting the oil capillary desaturation curve
to the right. This can significantly affect oil recovery
when low IFT is the primary mechanism.
Surfactant adsorption
The first uncertainty parameter was surfactant adsorption.
A range of values from 0.1 to 0.6 mg/g was tested. These
values suggest a retardation factor ranging from 0.15 to
0.9 PV, which can be compared to the surfactant slug
Sulaiman and Lee 71
size of 0.25 PV. As expected, the lower adsorption
values gave higher oil recovery. The value closest to the
most recent laboratory adsorption result using a reservoir
core of 0.1 mg/g resulted in a significantly higher recovery
of 39.2% OOIP. Figure 18 shows a comparison of
cumulative oil recovery for surfactant adsorption
sensitivity analysis.
Vertical permeability
The vertical to horizontal permeability ratio was also an
uncertain parameter. A lower value of 0.01 was tested
for comparison with the base case value of 0.05. The
result is shown in Table 4. A reduction in the kv/kh
resulted in an unexpected increase in oil recovery (29%
OOIP). This simulation had higher channeling effects
due to the lower kv/kh resulting in less cross flow from
the high permeability layers into the lower permeability
layers. The increase in oil production came primarily from
the upper permeability layer, which had improved areal
sweep efficiency as a result of increased surfactant
c oncentration throughout the flood.
Horizontal permeability
The next uncertainty parameter was the reservoir
permeability, which differs throughout the field. For this
uncertainty simulation, the permeability used in the base
case was reduced by a factor of two. It was expected that
two effects would occur: extended simulation time and
increased permeability reduction. The result is shown in
72 J. Petroleum Gas Eng.
Table 4. The oil recovery was only slightly reduced to
27.3% OOIP but the simulation life was more than
doubled. The reduction in permeability and the incsrease
in permeability reduction severely reduced the injectivity.
This uncertainty suggests that chemical flooding the
lower permeability region of this reservoir shows more
risk and should be designed carefully.
Capillary desaturation
The last uncertainty parameter was the oil capillary
desaturation curve. The base case model assumed
values provided in Delshad (1990). For this uncertainty
simulation, a more adverse oil desaturation curve was
used (lower oil trapping parameter with the curve moved
to the right). The result is shown in Table 4. As expected,
the oil recovery was reduced (25.2% OOIP). However,
the reduction in recovery is not as severe as it could
have been.
Conclusions
The simulation model for this study was based on mixed-
wet dolomite reservoir. The field has undergone many
years of waterflooding and is currently producing at 1 to
2% oil cut. The reservoir also has a high remaining oil
saturation, which makes this field an enquiry on results
(EOR) candidate. The reservoir, petrophysical, and fluid
properties were obtained from the field operator and a
simulation model was developed accordingly. The key
property of the reservoir is the highly heterogeneous
nature with noticeable layering.
A base case simulation was designed according to the
laboratory coreflood design, which was scaled up to the
field. The base case simulation resulted in a recovery of
28% OOIP. Most of the production was from the high
permeability layers and resulted in early oil and surfactant
breakthrough.
A sensitivity analysis was performed to optimize the
surfactant design. The surfactant mass was the key
parameters studied. As expected, increasing the
surfactant mass resulted in higher recovery. However,
the economic results did not necessarily follow the same
trend. Other parameters like surfactant adsorption,
permeability and salinity were studied as sensitive or
uncertain parameters. A value of adsorption closest to the
recent laboratory data gave very promising results. Other
uncertainty results indicate that surfactant flooding this
reservoir is profitable even with adverse conditions.
The research presented was a preliminary study
performed under time constraints. Given this constraint, a
limited number of sensitivity parameters and simulations
were run. In the future, the study should include other
parameters including residual oil saturation, surfactant
phase behavior, well spacing and grid refinement.
One important obstacle of this study was designing within
the field's well constraints, an important design
parameter that can affect the project life and chemical
behavior during the flood. Another important obstacle
was the reservoir heterogeneity and wettability. These
are the most important factors affecting the chemical
flooding performance.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors are grateful to Prof. Dr. Euy Soo Lee from
Dongguk University for his critical discussions and
supplying technical advices for this work.
REFERENCES
Adams WT, Schievelbein VH (1987). Surfactant Flooding Carbonate
Reservoirs. SPE Reservoir Engineering, pp. 619-626.
Anderson WG (1986). Wettability Literature Survey – Part 1:
Rock/Oil/Brine Interactions and the Effects of Core Handling on
Wettability. JPT, October, pp. 1125 -1144.
Bae JH (1995). Glenn Pool Surfactant-Flood Expansion Project: A
Technical Summary. SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium
Revised Paper 27818, Tulsa, OK January 25.
Bragg JR, Gale WW, McElhannon Jr. WA, Davenport OW, Petrichuk
MD, Ashcraft TL (1982). Loudon Surfactant Flood Pilot Test. SPE
Enhanced Oil Recovery Symposium, 4-7 April, Tulsa, OK.
Chen J, Hirasaki G, Flaum M (2004). Study of Wettability Alteration
From NMR: Effect of OBM on Wettability and NMR Responses. 8th
International Symposium on Reservoir Wettability, May.
Chilingar GV, Yen TF (1983). Some Notes on Wettability and Relative
Permeabilities of Carbonate Reservoir Rocks, II. Energy Sources,
7(1): 67-75.
Datta-Gupta A, Pope GA, Sepehrnoori K, Thrasher RL (1986). A
Symmetric, Positive Definite Formulation of a Three-Dimensional
Micellar/Polymer Simulator. SPE Reservoir Engineering 1(6):622 -
632.
David BL, Adam CJ, Christopher H, Larry NB, Taimur M, Varadarajan D,
Gary AP (2006). Identification and Evaluation of High-Performance
EOR Surfactants. SPE 100089, SPE/DOE Symposium on Improved
Oil Recovery, Tulsa, OK 22–26 April.
Delshad M (1990). Trapping of Micellar Fluids in Berea Sandstone.
Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin.
Dogru AH, Mitsuishi H, Yamamoto RH (1984). Numerical Simulation of
Micellar Polymer Field Processes. SPE Paper 13121, SPE Annual
Technical Conference in Houston, TX September.
Gilliland HE, Conle FR (1976). A Pilot Test of Surfactant Flooding in the
Big Muddy Field. SPE Paper 5891, 1976 SPE Rocky Mountain
Regional Meeting, Casper, WY May 11-12.
Holm LW, Robertson SD (1980). Improved Micellar/Polymer Flooding
With High-pH Chemicals. SPE Annual Technical Conference Revised
Paper 7583, July 28.
Kalpakci B, Arf TG, Barker JW, Krupa AS, Morgan JC, Neira RD (1990).
The Low- Tension Polymer Flood Approach to Cost-Effective
Chemical EOR. SPE/DOE Paper 20220, April, pp. 475 – 488.
Lake LW (1989). Enhanced Oil Recovery, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliff,
New Jersey.
Pope GA, Nelson RC (1978). A Chemical Flooding Compositional
Simulator. SPEJ (Oct.) 18, pp. 339-354.
Pope GA, Wang B, Kerming T (1979). A Sensitivity Study of
Micellar/Polymer Flooding. SPEJ (December), p. 357.
Putz A, Chevalier JP, Stock G, Philippot J (1980). A Field Test of
Microemulsion Flooding, Chateaurenard Field, France. SPE Paper
8198, Annual Technical Conference Revised Paper, July 17.
Saad N, Pope GA, Sepehrnoori K (1989). Simulation of Big Muddy
Surfactant Pilot. SPE Reservoir Engine., 4(1): 24-34.

Salathiel RA (1973). Oil Recovery by Surface Film Drainage in Mixed-
Wettability Rocks. JPT, October, pp. 1216-1224.
Scott T, Sharpe SR, Sorbie KS, Clifford PJ, Roberts LJ, Foulser RWS,
Oakes JA (1987). A General Purpose Chemical Flood Simulator. SPE
Paper 16029, Symposium on Reservoir Simulation, San Antonio, TX
February.
Tie H, Morrow NR (2005). Low Flood Rate Residual Saturations in
Carbonate Rocks. International Petroleum Technology Company,
IPCT 10470, November.
Todd MR, Chase CA (1979). A Numerical Simulator for Predicting
Sulaiman and Lee 73
Chemical Flood Performance. SPE Paper 7689, Reservoir Simulation
Symposium, Denver, CO February.
Treiber LE, Archer DL, Owens WW (1972). A Laboratory Evaluation of
the Wettability of Fifty Oil Producing Reservoirs. SPEJ, December, pp.
531-540.
Widmeyer RH, Williams DB, Ware JW (1988). Performance Evaluation
of the Salem Unit Surfactant/Polymer Pilot. JPT, pp. 1217-1226.
Wu WJ (1996). Optimum Design of Field-Scale Chemical Flooding
Using Reservoir Simulation. Ph. D. Dissertation, The University of
Texas at Austin, August.